Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Space Science

Starchaser Rocket Capsule Drop Tests Successful 120

Posted by timothy from the every-unicorn-survived dept.
thaig writes "Starchaser Industries reports that their NOVA 2 rocket capsule has completed two manned drop-tests from an altitude of 10,000 feet. The capsule was put through a number of manoeuvres during its descent to fully validate the steerable ram-air parachute canopy that made it possible to fly the craft like a glider. Starchaser Industries' Thunderbird project is a contender for the $10 million X-PRIZE. Here's the earlier story."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Starchaser Rocket Capsule Drop Tests Successful More

Starchaser Rocket Capsule Drop Tests Successful

Comments Filter:

  • Starchaser (Score:5, Informative)

    by bethane ( 686358 ) on Saturday August 02, 2003 @02:14PM (#6596236) Homepage Journal
    Well Starchaser are supposed to be launching their one man Nova rocket with sometime this year, with teamleader Steve Bennett in the pilots seat. However they said that last year... Britain could have been third country to orbit a satellite in the sixties had the Black Prince launcher been given the go ahead (see http://members.aol.com/nicholashl/ukspace/ukspace. htm for a comprehensive history of British rocketry in the fifties and sixties), and was the sixth to orbit in 1971. But remember that Britain was very much the declining power at this time and the labour government was cancelling most areospace projects at the time. Its typically British that we're the only country that developed a launcher then cancelled it after one sucessful flight.

    • Re:Starchaser (Score:3, Interesting)

      by spinlocked ( 462072 )
      But remember that Britain was very much the declining power at this time and the labour government was cancelling most areospace projects at the time.

      Also remember that the early space programmes were the public face of ICBM programmes. It became clear that trident was going to be our nuclear deterent, so there was little point in continuing the rocketry side of things. The deterent we had in the meantime was characteristicly heath-robinson [compuserve.com]. I'm a huge fan of the 'delta lady' myself - the vulcan, but they
      • That would be deterrent spelt with 2 r's.

      • Re:Starchaser (Score:4, Interesting)

        by mikerich ( 120257 ) on Saturday August 02, 2003 @04:40PM (#6596762)
        Also remember that the early space programmes were the public face of ICBM programmes. It became clear that trident was going to be our nuclear deterent, so there was little point in continuing the rocketry side of things.

        I think you mean Polaris, and we already had launched HMS Resolution in 1968. The programme was actually cancelled to try and stem a gaping hole in government spending.

        Best wishes,
        Mike.

    • Re:Starchaser (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Its typically British that we're the only country that developed a launcher then cancelled it after one sucessful flight.

      You may not remember, but Russia did the same with their Buran shuttle [aerospaceguide.net] (and here are some interesting pictures [raz.cx] of the jet-powered prototype almost identical to the one that flew to orbit [except, of course, for the propulsion system]). So they still had / have other means of getting into space - but all the same - it was a lot of effort for nothing.
    • British Rocket Science 1950 - present.

      Scene: Top secret rocket testing range somewhere in
      the home counties. The Mk IV rocket squats
      on it's launching pad.

      WC Ponsonby-Psmythe: What ho chaps spiffing what?
      So this is the old jalopy what?

      Gen. Fforbes-Fforbes: Jolly good show. I say you
      eggs what times the orrf?

      Private Erk: 0600 m'lud. (tugs forelock)

      Ponsonby-Psmythe: Top hole. Here comes the boffin.

      Prof. Quatermass: (Reading instructions on box)
    • But remember that Britain was very much the declining power at this time and the labour government was cancelling most areospace projects at the time. Its typically British that we're the only country that developed a launcher then cancelled it after one sucessful flight.

      Correct, except the programme was cancelled by a Conservative government.

      However sad, it was probably the right thing to do, the economy was in a terrible state, Harold Wilson's devaluation had undermined confidence in the Pound, we w

  • The capsule was put through a number of manoeuvres during its descent to fully validate the steerable ram-air parachute canopy that made it possible to fly the craft like a glider.

    What maneuvers is it capable of?
    What is a steerable ram-air parachute canopy? How does it work?
    How is this better than what has been done before?
    How does this contribute to the overall goal of winning the X-Prize?

    This sad stub for an article leaves me with much more questions than answers. Can't the editors find a fully fl
    • A steerable ram-air parachute is one of these
      http://www.ukskydiving.com/squarelge.htm

      It's basically a nylon wing that stays rigid because of forward motion. Air is "Rammed" into the front, which makes the wing inflate, which in turn instead of just falling glides forward. This means it stays inflated.

      If you look at the picture, you can see the dude has two handles. These allow him to pull down on the tail of the parachute, and change the shape of the parachute, changing the angle of attack. Pulling the le

  • Obligatory slashdotting joke (Score:5, Funny)

    by SuperBanana ( 662181 ) on Saturday August 02, 2003 @02:22PM (#6596269)
    I dunno about the capsule, but their site spiralled down in flames and crashed before there was even a single comment.

  • Article text in case of Slashdotting (Score:5, Informative)

    by Magic Thread ( 692357 ) on Saturday August 02, 2003 @02:22PM (#6596270) Homepage Journal
    Starchaser Industries have successfully completed two manned parachute drop tests of their NOVA 2 rocket capsule.

    The manned drop tests were carried out at the Red Lake drop zone in Arizona USA on the 22nd and 24th July 2003. The capsule was deployed from the rear cargo door of a Fairchild C123K aircraft at an altitude of 10,000 feet.

    The capsule was put through a number of manoeuvres during its descent to fully validate the steerable ram-air parachute canopy that made it possible to fly the craft like a glider. Nova 2 was then brought in for a precision landing. Steve Bennett, Managing Director of Starchaser Industries, said, "We are pleased with how the capsule has performed, we've completed two very successful flights. These drop tests mark a significant milestone in Starchaser Industries manned space programme. We have proved the different key systems in our rocket programme and now have the technology to push forward in our bid to win the X PRIZE"

    Weighing in at 250 kg and measuring 3-meters in length, the single seat Nova 2 capsule has become Britain's first manned rocket capsule and has been developed to test a variety of systems for use in project Thunderbird; Starchaser Industries entry into the US $10 million X PRIZE, which is on offer to the first non-governmental organisation capable of launching three people into space.

    Steve Bennett is available for comment following the success of the manned drop tests, video footage and digital stills are available, please contact Lee Kirby on 08700 278766288 or email lee@starchaser.co.uk

  • Details (Score:4, Insightful)

    by pete-classic ( 75983 ) <hutnick@gmail.com> on Saturday August 02, 2003 @02:32PM (#6596310) Homepage Journal
    Anyone know how they plan to slow it from orbital speed to a speed where they and safely deploy the 'chute?

    This would seem to be the second hardest part. (Hardest being geting the thing orbial in the first place.)

    -Peter
    • If you spent a little effort reading the article, you would understand that the X-Prize does not put someone in orbit, it's just about launching straight up to 100k and then coming down.

      If you completed high school, you should know that orbit involves traveling around 17 thousand miles per hour sideways.
      • Hm. Don't recall covering any of that in HS. Damn public schools.

        I re-read the article and don't see the info that you alluded to anywhere. Damn reading comprehesion skills.

        Anyway, since you are clearly an expert, will they just be able to deploy the 'chute at the apex of the flight? When you say 100k do you mean 100,000 ft? Seems like they could, since there is still a fair amount of atmosphere there.

        -Peter

        • Re:Details (Score:1, Informative)

          by Anonymous Coward
          The page with details on the X-PRIZE says it's 100 km, which is a significant difference.

        • Don't blame the rest of us for your education - high schools in Norway actualy covers the orbital mechanics as a special subset of the mechanics of movement if you pick natural sciences as one of your classes...

          Anyway, the X-price [xprize.org] is a competition to build and launch a 'spaceship' carreing 3 people to a minimum height of 100 kilometer (abb. km or just k) twice in the course of two weeks. Deploying a chute while 62.5 miles up in the air isn't all that smart - either you'll rip the chute or use a long time an

          • They must not teach standard SI abbrivations at your fucking wiz-bang school.

            k = prefix meaning 1000 (kilo)
            m = linear unit meter
            km = linear unit kilometer

            I won't blame you for failing to detect the sarcasm, I understand that is very difficult do do in a non-native language.

            -Peter
      • there isn't alot of air at that altitude compaired to sea level. 3.21e-5 slugs/ft^3 (.01786 kg/m^3) at 100k ft (~30km) compaired to .002377 slug/ft^3 (1.225 kg/m^3) at sea level I would think a droug chute would be used until they get to denser air. I would be worried about tangles on their control lines and static lines.
    • "The capsule was put through a number of manoeuvres during its descent to fully validate the steerable ram-air parachute canopy that made it possible to fly the craft like a glider."

      It sounds like it's a glider. I suppose it continues to glide for awhile, letting the atmosphere slow it down until the speed has been sufficiently reduced.

    • Re:Details (Score:2, Funny)

      by madpierre ( 690297 )
      Yeah, it's called the ground. ........ SPLAT ... POP ... chute deployed. :-)
  • Just what we all need,
    Another [starchaser.co.uk] Thunderbird [mozilla.org] Project [mech.ubc.ca]
    • The Starchaser Thunderbird rocket has always been called that - Steve's a fan of the original Gerry Anderson series, and many of us were there when Steve met Gerry at FAB Cafe in Manchester a few years back.

      That said, the only SF spaceship other than the original Thunderbirds I've heard Steve ever rave about was the Whitestar from Babylon-5.

      Steve has always said (if memory serves) that they'd launch in 2004 (or earlier finances permitting), and I'm really pleased to see that he's continue to follow his dr
      • The Starchaser Thunderbird rocket has always been called that - Steve's a fan of the original Gerry Anderson series, and many of us were there when Steve met Gerry at FAB Cafe in Manchester a few years back.

        Heh, I still chuckle when I think about the Starchaser rocket behind the bar there - they used to have a real one, then the transport to take it to the launch site broke down and several big guys had to carry it through the streets of Manchester / Salford.

  • Say, isnt that only in version 0.1? Well, if my mail client can survive a drop from an altitude of 10,000ft, I'll sure be using it for a long time. Oh...my mistake, I saw Thunderbird and mistaked it for Mozilla's up and coming mail client. So these guys didnt do the mail client deal, they are the ones with that speedy heate...er..processor, right? Right?... (So THATS why they call the processor a Space Heater, because these guys made it)

  • More of this is needed (Score:3, Interesting)

    by egg troll ( 515396 ) on Saturday August 02, 2003 @02:45PM (#6596356) Homepage Journal
    I'm glad to see the private sector making advances in space flight. Personally, I don't believe this is an area that our government should be spending any money on. I know that this won't make me popular with the Slashdot crowd.


    However, there are other more important things that our government should be spending money upon. Education, health care and welfare programs are all vastly more important than space exploration. Space programs are a luxury, and in these tough economic times its a luxury that Americans should do without.


    The fact that this program was successful shows that the private sector can shoulder the spaceflight burden. Hopefully our government will recognize this and begin to shift funding to programs that are more worthy.

    • Actually, if you're saying the government should exit the spaceflight business altogether to save money during our current economic downturn, you're incorrect.

      The government actually makes money by launching commercial payloads into space -- how do you think all of those cell phone satellites, etc. get up there? Obviously, the program as a whole is a loss, thanks to wastes like the ISS; however, if the government were to drop research and simply operate as a commercial entity, launching private payloads,
    • I agree that the government should not be involved in space flight, but I disagree that space flight is a luxury. Looking back at history, a specific technology always gets easier and cheaper to produce and is more distributed. Each moment that passes, another individual in the world has the capability to destroy the world through technological means. Eventually, dooms-day technology will be in enough hands that it will be statisticly inevitable that someone will [press the button]/[release the bacteria]
    • yes private sector space flight is great, but i think you underestimate how important space exploration will be in the (not to distant) future, what with the way the planet is currently going. (pollution, global nuclear disaster, running out of unrenewable resources) the sooner we have colonies seperate from earth the better. Who knows what could happen to it. also, i think your defence budget probably has a lot more to do with the tough economic times than nasa. i think it will be a long time before you
  • Thunderbird the rocket or Thunderbird the mail client?

    Phoenix the browser or the database?

    Mozilla the browser or ,er , neverimind.
    • They say that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, and naming something after someone is considered flattery as well. With all that, why can't we just politely refer to things as the Thunderbird [Browser, Rocket, Whatever], and not squabble over who gets the cool names?
  • Okay I have a few questions here.

    1.) Can you get insurance, both life and rocket insurance for this type of amateur space travel?

    2.) What if they get stuck in space and can't re-enter orbit safely, is NASA/Russia going to make a rescue attempt?

    3.) If they do make it and then land, does this mean that it is of course more than possible for any average joe to go to space?

    4.) What's next, M-Prize, first man to mars and back?

    • Re:Launch Date? (Score:3, Interesting)

      by twostar ( 675002 )
      1.) You can get insurance for anything, the Premiums may be a little high though.

      2.) They aren't going into orbit so there is no way to get stuck. It's a simple projectile trajectory, up and down like a cannon ball.

      3.) That's the point of the X-Prize.

      4.) We can only hope!
    • 1.) Can you get insurance, both life and rocket insurance for this type of amateur space travel?

      Insurance is only a way of evenly distributing the cost of damages across a group. If 1000 people buy house insurance and one house gets burned down at a cost of $200 000, the insurance pays for the damage with the $200 it collected from each homeowner. If only one rocket gets launched into space and crashes/burns at a cost of $1 million........
      • With these one off/rare things, it's really more of a high-stakes gamble; Assuming this $1M rocket has a 10% chance of catastrophic failure, taking $100k in premiums would allow you to 'break-even' on the deal. Charging 'break-even' rates for a 15% chance of failure gives you something for your trouble.

  • Warning bells. (Score:3, Informative)

    by Christopher Thomas ( 11717 ) on Saturday August 02, 2003 @02:56PM (#6596398)
    I'd thought the name sounded familiar.

    Isn't this the same Steve Bennett who was planning to launch his X-prize rocket on what amounted to the same kind of engines used by the high-power model rocket community, despite the community trying to tell him that they wouldn't scale the way he wants them to? The guy who was prevented from doing further launch tests because he set the firing range he was using on fire? The guy who was ripped apart in the last three articles about him for not having an adequate understanding of what he's doing?

    This does not bode well for his scheduled launch attempt.

    • Re:Warning bells. (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Centurion509 ( 685702 ) on Saturday August 02, 2003 @03:24PM (#6596484)
      Those incidents you refer to were all several years ago. Starchaser has definitely improved its reputation since then, for its three recent major accomplishments in the last 24 months have all been positive:
      37-ft. Nova rocket blasts off! [hobbyspace.com]
      Churchill liquid engine test success [xprize.org]
      Nova II capsule test drop success [space.com]
      The next few months will be very exciting. Starchaser plans to integrate all three of the above accomplishments in one project: the manned launch of the Nova rocket -- outfitted with the new Churchill engines -- carrying the Nova II capsule as payload!

      • Re:Warning bells. (Score:1, Informative)

        by Anonymous Coward
        > Those incidents you refer to were all several years ago.

        No they weren't. I know some guys who went up to one of his open days, his last launch of his Nova apparently used a cluster of Aerotech M-class or similar motors they said, and the guys who went along to his open day, and who are rocketry enthusiasts themselves, said "yeah right" he's still using a cluster of solids by the looks of it. These guys are HPR people, so they have some clues.

        > Starchaser has definitely improved its reputation sinc
        • >his last launch of his Nova apparently used a cluster of Aerotech M-class or similar motors

          That's correct, he used solids -- but only for that launch in 2001 . If you look at the Starchaser web-site, the Nova launch was to verify the airframe, electronics, recovery, etc. You can think of the solid engines as a one-time crutch to get the rocket off the ground. Now that the more powerful liquids are ready, the next Nova launch will be equipped with those.

          >...he has apparently threatened...I'll ch
          • John Carmack et al. are abandoning the hard-to-get peroxide fuel and going for a mixed monoprop system. They have had some success recently [armadilloaerospace.com]:

            We are really psyched about these results. The odds are looking very good that this will be the propulsion system for the X-Prize vehicle. Cheaper, higher performance, and no availability problems. Big wins.

            So it looks like they'll be getting propellant soon. And anyway, check out some of the cool pictures [armadilloaerospace.com]!

  • From their website:
    Our project is aimed squarely at winning the X-Prize and not in the first instance about ferrying truckloads of people into space. Truckloads of people? So, they gonna stack'em like boxes and shove them into space???

  • economics of rewarding (Score:5, Funny)

    by Flunitrazepam ( 664690 ) on Saturday August 02, 2003 @03:09PM (#6596438) Journal
    Is it really easier to design and build a craft to take you 100 miles above the earth and return safely than it is to track down Saddam?

    You get 35 million for Saddam, only 10 million for turning into a shooting star.
    • Well considering the US is spending something like $1 billion a week occupying Iraq if capturing/killing Saddam shortens their stay by just one day than it works out quite cheap.

      However this is a big if, capturing Saddamn may not make any difference what-so-ever.
      • Yep. And since they plan to stay there over a year, that'd be more than the 10 to 40 Billion we need to get an elevator [www.isr.us] up and running and trash the rocket engines concept altogether.

        At least that was what the US government would be doing if getting people in space was what it really wanted to do.

        Frankly, if I'd been ruling the world, I'd shift technology, research and humanity as a whole into high gear _BEFORE_ salvaging Iraq and removing Saddam's testacles, but hey, that's just me.
        • Frankly, if I'd been ruling the world, I'd shift technology, research and humanity as a whole into high gear _BEFORE_ salvaging Iraq and removing Saddam's testacles, but hey, that's just me.

          It's not just you. It's me, too. Frankly, I don't care about what happens to Saddam Houssein (sp?). He can just rot for the rest of his life, assuming he isn't dead yet, as a washed-up has-been whom everybody hates. If I were ruling the world, I'd scrap the FAA regulations that are one of the biggest obstacles to provat

    • It's not a huge reward and that's good because it means that the people who win it will have to have a business plan for their launcher afterwards.

      This is not about breaking a record as much as it is about encouraging people to turn space access into a commercial proposition.

    • Re:economics of rewarding (Score:1, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward
      You get 35 million for Saddam, only 10 million for turning into a shooting star. Ok.. for the X prize you need to launch, land, and re-launch within 2 weeks (IIRC). So, use the second flight to land the launcher on Saddam, and triple yer prize money.
    • 1 ... capture Sadman.
      2 ... borrow WMD/scud from Sadman.
      3 ... use WMD/scud to win x-prize.
      4 ... profit $45,000,000

      Sadman would make a good test 'pilot'. (no need for a chute) :-)

  • In Soviet Russia... (Score:1, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward
    ...man-rocket test drops you!!

  • optimistic & redundant (Score:3, Funny)

    by madpierre ( 690297 ) on Saturday August 02, 2003 @04:02PM (#6596616) Homepage Journal
    The name Starchaser is a bit optimistic.
    How about ... LEOlimper.

    So far all they've done is chuck it off the back of a plane.

    Anyway to get the 10 megabucks the thing only has to be

    capable of launching three people into space.

    No mention of gettin em back :-) so a parachute is somewhat redundant.

    Now where can i find three volunteers????
    • No, they have to be safely returned together with the entire space vehicle. See rule 5 below or take a look at the full X-PRIZE Guidelines [xprize.org].

      5. The crew must return to the Earth's surface from both flights in good health as reasonably defined and judged by the X PRIZE Review Board. The flight vehicle must return from both flights substantially intact, as defined by and in the sole judgment of the X PRIZE Review Board, such that the vehicle is reusable.

      • I still prefer my plan.
        After all it says x-prize *guidelines* ;-)
        Guidelines are pretty flexible, forget all the nasty engineering stuff.
        Slip the judging panel 50 bucks and a bottle of bourbon each, problem solved.
        That still leaves about $9,999,750 in prize money for the taking.

        Now where can i find three volunteers?
    • (Yes I know this was a joke)

      IIRC The X-Prize goes to the team that can launch three people into space, bring them back(intact), and be able to launch again in under 2 weeks.

      Though it would be fun to be able to shoot three idiots into space and leave them there...

  • looming disaster? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by fihzy ( 214410 ) on Saturday August 02, 2003 @04:07PM (#6596633)
    I think it's one thing for a little team to build a narrow electric car [commutercars.com] where the government spent billions and failed, but another entirely to do sub orbital flights where the resources of NASA are still not enough to prevent tragedies like the shuttle accidents. Serious life loss is surely imminent, but the most ironic thing of all is that even if some people do make it up and down again, it can surely never lead to actual orbital flights as the engineering and physics problems associated with getting in an out of the atmosphere really do need astronomical resources to solve?

    Being from the little town where Bennet is from

    • Re:looming disaster? (Score:2, Insightful)

      by thaig ( 415462 )
      You can't say that its

      • a) too unambitious because it's suborbital and
      • b) too difficult for anyone to attempt even 41 years after Gargarin went up in his big firework
      at the same time. Which argument are you going to choose?
  • In fact, five prototypes [thunderbirdsonline.com] have already been used for quite a while now.

  • My money's still on Rutan (Score:3, Interesting)

    by NewtonsLaw ( 409638 ) on Saturday August 02, 2003 @04:15PM (#6596661)
    My money is still on the Rutan boys and their Scaled Composites [xprize.org] entry.

    They're the only ones who have shown credible progress in respect to actually getting a craft flying towards the heavens. Most of the other X-Prize entrants are either playing with models or dreaming :-)
  • I really don't see any difficulties in conducting manned drop-tests from 10.000 feet. I mean, anyone can drop from 10.000 feet. There's no problem there.

    Unless of course if you're supposed to live through it. That may be somewhat more difficult.
  • That Thunderbird project can be confused with say the Mozilla mail client. Another name would be better, "Firebird" for instance.

  • ram those foils .. (Score:2, Informative)

    by savuporo ( 658486 )
    For people who had somequestion mark in place of "ram-air parafoils.."

    "ram-air parafoils" are nothing but a regular recantgular parachute canopies that are used every day in regular skydiving sports ( ive used one exactly 33 times and its been working like charm :) )

    It flies like a regular airplane wing, just that the lifting profile isnt fixed. The wing is "open" in front, and the airflow makes the wing "rigid". Thats the general principle anyways. You steer it with pulling the "brakes" on one or oth
    • Oh and more on canopies, Starchaser actually tested their canopy before with driving a ATV out of the cargo plane. The story and images can be found here [starchaser.co.uk] Thats what i'd call an "extreme debugging".

Slashdot Top Deals

C'est magnifique, mais ce n'est pas l'Informatique. -- Bosquet [on seeing the IBM 4341]

Close